Todd: A survey dives into how people define racism and how that impacts their view of immigration

Racism. Immigration. Few topics can combine to ignite such anger, contempt and division.

It was not always this way. The belief that it is racist to want to reduce immigration has only been a significant viewpoint since the 1960s for some in the West. It’s still not a common belief among people in Asia.

A Canadian-raised demographer has discovered that people of good will, across nations, use the word racism differently. Their disagreement over the meaning has led to often bitter, possibly unnecessary, polarization.

Fascinating research by Prof. Eric Kaufmann of the University of London, Birkbeck, breaks new ground showing the contrasting ways people in 18 countries understand the hyper-charged term, racist.

Kaufmann writes in the academic journal Foreign Affairs there is sharp disagreement among people in the West, but not so much the East, over whether it’s racist to want to protect one’s own ethno-cultural group.

His research grew out of an article by the Brookings Institution’s Shadi Hamid, in which Hamid contends white “racial self-interest” should be distinguished from white racism.

Hamid believes protecting one’s ethno-cultural group, one’s “people,” is an age-old phenomenon, which is different from actively discriminating against others out of a feeling of group superiority.

Kaufmann’s research sheds light on immigration-values conflicts that are riveting the West.

Kaufmann’s findings also might illuminate how Canadians could approach immigration trends, such as those showing whites have become a minority in Toronto and Vancouver.

In a nutshell, the Kaufmann-led Ipsos-Mori survey of 14,000 people in 18 countries found a majority “do not think it’s racist to want less immigration for ethno-cultural reasons.” Even among Americans and Canadians, who were the most inclined of all to say it’s “racist to want to reduce immigration to maintain group share,” that belief was held by only about 37 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively.

In predominantly black South Africa, 13 per cent thought it racist to trim immigration in the name of ethno-cultural self-protection. The belief was also held by fewer than one out of four Japanese, Mexicans, Britons, Germans and South Koreans.

It could be argued residents of these countries are like white conservatives in North America: They tend to think preserving one’s group is not racist. The Ipsos-Mori survey, however, found dramatic variations on the question of racism and immigration within English-speaking populations.

Canada is a prime example. Even though 37 per cent of English-speaking Canadians thought it racist to reduce immigration to protect an ethno-cultural group, the portion dropped to 15 per cent among Quebeckers, who have for decades fought to preserve their French language and distinct values.

Differences have been even sharper in the polarized U.S.

Kaufmann — who was born in Hong Kong and raised by mixed-race parents in Japan and Vancouver — found only 11 per cent of whites who voted for Trump believe it’s racist to want to reduce immigration for ethno-cultural reasons. The average among white Clinton voters was 73 per cent.

The international survey suggests white American liberals are by far the most likely on the planet to believe it’s racist — for whites, at least — to oppose immigration for ethno-cultural motives.

They may also hold to a double standard. As Kaufmann says, just 18 per cent of white Clinton voters say a Latino or Asian American who wants to increase immigration from Latin America or Asia to boost her group’s share of the population is being racist.

Furthermore, members of non-white ethnic groups in the U.S. were less likely than white Clinton voters to criticize whites for wanting to protect their ethno-cultural group. Just 45 per cent of U.S. blacks, Hispanics and Asians judged it racist when whites wanted to slow immigration.

Kaufmann did not survey Canadians in a detailed way.

How can the West get out of this values split over immigration? The way forward will demand give-and-take among both liberals and conservatives.

“The right needs to stop amplifying irrational fears and stereotypes of out-groups, such as Mexicans and Muslims, which is clearly racist,” Kaufmann writes in Foreign Affairs.

“Yet it is also time to shelve the conceit that Western whites who prefer the ethnic status quo over more diversity do so primarily out of racism,” he says, echoing Duke University’s Ashley Jardina, who found that whites who identify with their group are no more hostile to minorities than whites who do not.

Kaufmann also urges people of European ancestry to open wider to multi-ethnic unions, as do many black and Hispanic groups, “which accept the offspring of mixed marriages as full group members, although Asian groups by and large do not.”

It’s inevitable some form of white identity will seek political expression in years to come, Kaufmann says. And that’s not necessarily bad, as long as the movement is moderate and committed to the common good.

The challenge will be to keep a lid on extremism, from either side.

“Avoiding this requires recognizing that it is wrongheaded for liberals to ask conservative whites to celebrate their group’s demise, just as it is misguided for right-wingers to insist that minority ethnicity be erased in favour of one-size-fits-all nationhood.”